empathy with nature

ate

Keywords:Empathy with nature

Anthropomorphism

d bpat

lacking in psychology. The present research thus provides this needed investigation by testing fourpropositions regarding a new constructddispositional empathy with nature (DEN), which refers to thedispositional tendency to understand and share the emotional experience of the natural world. In ve

becom

Empathy, broadly dened as the understanding and sharing of

in conservation efforts (e.g., Sobel, 1996). Despite this call, sys-tematic research on the notion of empathy toward nature,particularly from the personality perspective, has been rare inpsychology. The present research thus provides this neededinvestigation.

g the emotional). These two com-ot separate (Davis,1978) showed thatons. Baron-Cohenthe two compo-

nents cannot be empirically disentangled.By denition, empathy could involve either negative or positive

emotions. Through empathy, one may feel distress for anotherpersons suffering, or experience joy for other peoples triumph.However, psychological research has predominantly analyzedempathy in a negative context (e.g., Batson, 1991; Coke et al., 1978),in part because the academic interest in empathy originates fromresearch on altruistic behavior (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Hoffman,2008). More important, as Royzman and Kumar (2001) pointed out,

* Tel.: 852 2358 7828.

Contents lists available at

Journal of Environm

w.e

Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104E-mail address: [email protected] persons emotional experience (Davis, 1983; Hoffman,2008), has often been regarded by social scientists as the keyto altruism and intergroup harmony (e.g., Eisenberg & Miller,1987; Stephen & Finlay, 1999). In recent years, some environ-mental thinkers have called for attention to the role of empathy

fective empathy refers to joining and sharinresponses of another person (e.g., Batson, 1991ponents are considered to be inter-related and n1983). For instance, Coke, Batson, and McDavis (perspective taking can trigger empathic emotiand Wheelwright (2004) even suggested thatwe can save them. (Sobel, 1996) cognitive component refers to the understanding of another per-sons emotions through perspective taking (e.g., Hogan, 1969). Af-1. Introduction

.we must begin in empathy, by0272-4944/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004stronger DEN (Propositions 2e4). DEN was distinct from empathy with humans and a number of knowndeterminants of conservation behavior (including personality traits, values, emotional involvement withnature, environmental concern, and social desirability bias). Taken together, these ndings highlight thepossibility of developing a theory of empathy with nature by referring to the existing understandingabout empathy with humans. The construct of DEN has much theoretical utility, as it sheds new light onseveral under-explored issues in conservation psychology (including the gender gap in environmen-talism, the role of connection to nature, and the role of anthropomorphism), and bears practical im-plications for the promotion of environmentalism. In addition, the newly developed scale for DEN ispotentially useful for assessing the efcacy of environmental education programs.

2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ing the animals before

2. Empathy with humans

Empathy has two components: cognitive and affective. TheGenderConnection to naturespondents who felt close to nature, and participants who considered nature to be sentient exhibitedConservation behavior studies with 817 participants in total (including university students and working adults from two so-cieties), DEN robustly and uniquely predicted conservation behavior (Proposition 1). Females, re-Dispositional empathy with nature

Kim-Pong Tam*

Division of Social Science, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear W

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 5 June 2013

a b s t r a c t

Empathy has been regardesystematic research on em

journal homepage: wwAll rights reserved.r Bay, Hong Kong

y environmental thinkers as a key in conservation efforts. Nevertheless,hy toward nature, particularly from the personality perspective, has been

SciVerse ScienceDirect

ental Psychology

lsevier .com/locate/ jep

entaexperience of empathic joy is relatively unusual; peoples empathicreactions are more readily aroused by the perceived negative affectin others than its positive counterpart, and this asymmetry appearsto be hardwired biologically in human lineage. Accordingly, extantstudies have typically examined empathic distress only, andconsidered compassionate feelings and helping behavior as itsoutcomes (Batson, 1991). These studies could be roughly catego-rized into two streams: induced empathy and dispositionalempathy. The research on induced empathy follows the tradition ofsocial psychology; it typically manipulates empathy through askingparticipants to take the perspective of a target person in distress.The research on dispositional empathy follows the personalitypsychology tradition; it assumes that the tendency to empathize isa stable trait, and thereby assesses empathy through self-reportmeasures. Generally, both induced empathy and dispositionalempathy have a robust effect on compassion and helping (Batson,2011; Coke et al., 1978; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Hodges, Myers,& Clark, 2011; Konrath, OBrien, & Hsing, 2011).

3. Empathy with nature

The robust nding regarding the association between empathyand helping has inspired some environmental thinkers to considerthe possibility of empathy with naturedthe understanding andsharing of the emotional experience, particularly distress, of thenatural world. This form of empathy can be exemplied with thefollowing. When reading news that a deep-water oil spill ispolluting the ocean, an individual may put himself or herself in theplace of the affected animals and feel what they are feeling. Simi-larly, whenwatching a video about shark nning, some individualsmay visualize vividly the sharks experience and feel the pain thesharks are experiencing. One of the proponents for the primacy ofempathy in conservation efforts is Sobel (1996). As he expressed inthe opening quote, conservation efforts must begin in empathy. Inhis view, empathy should be taught in early childhood, and theempathy thus developed will serve as the foundation for moreabstract environmental stewardship later in ones life. This viewhasbeen echoed by others (e.g., Chawla, 2009; Myers, Saunders, &Bexell, 2009). In particular, Guergachi, Ngenyama, Magness, andHakim (2010) proposed that, rather than studying a long list ofsuch characteristics as environmental friendliness or frugality, oneshould focus on the smallest set of qualities which, once met by themajority, will lead to sustainability directly; in their view, this re-sides in empathy.

3.1. Induced empathy with nature

Some studies have already found empirical support to the pre-sumed importance of empathy. They commonly used perspectivetaking manipulations to arouse participants empathic concerntoward certain natural elements in distress (induced empathy withnature; IEN hereafter). Shelton and Rogers (1981) found that par-ticipants who had taken the perspective of a suffering whale, ascompared to those who had not, exhibited stronger compassiontoward whales in general and intention to protect them. This effectwas replicated by Schultz (2000), who showed that when partici-pants had taken the perspective of some animals harmed bypollution, they became more concerned about the biosphere as awhole (see also Sevillano, Aragones, & Schultz, 2007). Berenguer(2007) extended these studies by showing that IEN can triggeractual behavior. He found that participants who had taken theperspective of a suffering bird or tree felt not only more compas-sionate but also more obligated to help it and nature as a whole.When asked to allocate some money to several student programs,

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environmthese participants favored an environmental cause (see alsoBerenguer, 2010). Taken together, induced empathy toward certainnatural elements in distress is able to activate concern for not onlythese elements but also the whole natural world.

3.2. Dispositional empathy with nature: the missing construct

As Cronbach (1957) warned, to build a theory about a phe-nomenon, it is necessary to study its variance both among experi-mental treatments and among individuals. In this spirit, a completetheory of empathy with nature needs to consider dispositionalempathy with nature (DEN hereafter)dthe dispositional tendencyto understand and share the emotional experience of the naturalworld. Some individuals may spontaneously empathizewith naturemore strongly than do others. The overall objective of the presentresearch is thus to develop a systematic understanding regardingthis previously neglected construct. To achieve this objective, closereference to existing, well-established understanding aboutdispositional empathy with humans is made. This gives rise to fourtheoretical propositions (see Section 3.3). As noted, by denition,empathy is not conned to negative emotions. For instance, onemay feel joy when he or she takes the role of a forest that is well-protected from human interference. Nevertheless, the presentinvestigation centers on the distress of nature for three reasons.First, as identied earlier, empathy is more likely to be aroused bydistress than by good fortune (Royzman & Kumar, 2001). To developa theory about empathy with nature with reference to existingresearch about empathy (e.g., Batson, 1991; Hoffman, 2008), it isconceivable to start with a focus on distress. Second, past studies onIEN (e.g., Berenguer, 2007; Sevillano et al., 2007) focused ondistress only. To connect to these studies and thereby to build ageneral theory, the present research centers on distress too. Third,empathy with nature has often been discussed in the context ofenvironmental degradation (e.g., Guergachi et al., 2010; Sobel,1996), as the practical concern of this discussion is how to miti-gate such degradation.

3.3. Four propositions regarding DEN

The present research aims to test four propositions. The rstproposition considers the effect of DEN, while the next threepropositions consider factors that account for individual differ-ences in DEN. These propositions are certainly not exhaustive;some other possible propositions for future studies will be dis-cussed in the General Discussion.

3.3.1. DEN motivates conservation behaviorAs reviewed, empathy with humansmotivates helping behavior.

Based on this nding, it is expected that empathy with naturemotivates protective behavior toward the natural environment(e.g., Sobel, 1996). Some studies on IEN have already supported thisview (e.g., Berenguer, 2007; Schultz, 2000). It is thus intuitive topropose that people with stronger DEN exhibit more conservationbehavior (Proposition 1). It should be noted that among the existingstudies on IEN, only Berenguer (2007) provided behavioral evi-dence. As Cronbach (1957) noted, simultaneous consideration ofmany criteria is needed for a satisfactory evaluation of perfor-mance (p. 676) of a construct. Accordingly, in the present research,two forms of conservation behavior will be assessed. Publicbehavior ranges from active participation (e.g., joining an envi-ronmental group) to less active support (e.g., donation) in envi-ronmental movement, whereas private behavior refers to personaland household decisions (e.g., recycling; see Stern, 2000). Dispo-sitional empathy with nature is expected to motivate both forms.Also, its predictive power is expected to be independent from that

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104 93of other known determinants of conservation behavior.

enta3.3.2. Females have stronger DENBatson (1991) suggested that valuing other peoples welfare is a

key antecedent for empathy. This valuing is partly subject to onessocialization experience (Hoffman, 2008). Generally, females aresocialized to take care of other peoples needs more strongly, and tohave a stronger ethic of care (e.g., Gilligan, 1982). Accordingly,women are expected to exhibit stronger empathy than men(Hoffman, 2008). Indeed, this gender difference has been found(e.g., Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Davis, 1983; Jolliffe &Farrington, 2006). Based on this reasoning, it is proposed thatwomen have stronger DEN than do men (Proposition 2).

Past studies have revealed a gender gap in environmentalism. Ina review of studies spanning from 1988 to 1999, Zelezny, Chua, andAldrich (2000) concluded that women exhibit signicantly moreenvironmental concern and participation in environmentalbehavior than do men. This gap has also been attributed to thegender difference in socialization: Because proenvironmentalbehavior can be considered as a kind of helping, females, who aremore socialized than males to value other beings needs, showstronger environmentalism (McCright, 2010; Zelezny et al., 2000).Given the expected gender difference in DEN and its role in con-servation behavior, it is likely that socialization gives rise to thegender difference in DEN, which in turn generates the gender dif-ference in conservation behavior. Although the gender gap inenvironmentalism has already been explained in terms of social-ization, direct evidence to its more proximal mechanisms has beencalled for (see Zelezny et al. 2000). Testing the mediational role ofDEN could be useful in answering this call.

3.3.3. Individuals who feel close to nature have stronger DENOne force that works against empathy is seeing another person

as different and remote from oneself (Batson, 1991; Gutsell &Inzlicht, in press; Royzman & Kumar, 2001). People show moreempathy toward others to whom they feel close. For instance,Gutsell and Inzlicht (2010) showed that the neural networksinvolved in empathy were more responsive to actions by ingroupmembers than those by outgroup members. Yzerbyt, Dumont,Wigboldus, and Gordijn (2003) showed that participants whocategorized victims into their own group reported more emotionalresponses than did thosewho categorized them into an outgroup. Itis thus proposed that DEN is stronger among people who feelconnected to nature (Proposition 3).

Environmental psychologists have considered the possibility thatreconnecting humans to nature helps mitigate the environmentalcrisis. Connection to nature could be dened as the extent to whichpeople feel affectively attached to the natural community (Mayer &Frantz, 2004), the extent to which people cognitively include theknowledge structure about nature in the self-schema (Schultz, 2001),or a combination of these tendencies (Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy,2009). Connection to nature motivates conservation behavior. Forinstance, Schultz (2001) reported that inclusion of nature in the self ispositively correlated with concern about the biosphere and envi-ronmental behavior (see also Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Nisbet et al.(2009) reported that connection to nature predicts love for animals,membership inenvironmental organizations, self-identication as anenvironmentalist, and preference for greenproducts. It is noteworthythat DEN should be distinct from connection to nature. Though thelatter may entail certain emotions (e.g., love) toward nature, it doesnot concern how people react to the emotional experience of nature.Nevertheless, if feeling connected to nature enhances DEN, as pro-posed, then it is reasonable to hypothesize that DEN mediates theassociation between connection to nature and conservation behavior.Thus far, only one study (Gosling & Williams, 2010) has studied themediating mechanism underlying such association. Support to this

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environm94mediational hypothesis can attest the theoretical utility of DEN.Some have suggested that empathy can induce self-othermerging. Davis, Conklin, Smith, and Luce (1996) reported thatperspective taking produces greater overlap between the cognitiverepresentations of the self and the target person. Although Batsonet al. (1997) failed to replicate this nding, it is still of importanceto consider the possibility that DEN enhances connection to nature.Schultz (2000) also noted this possibility: taking perspective mayhave expanded the participants inclusiveness of self and reducedthe degree of separation that participants perceived betweenthemselves and nature (p. 403). Thus, this reverse mediationalhypothesis (i.e., connection to nature mediates the effect of DEN)will be explored.

3.3.4. Individuals who consider nature to be sentient have strongerDEN

AsBatson (1991) explained, perception of another persons need isa prerequisite for empathy, and this perception requires the recog-nition that the person is a sentient, intentional agent (see alsoHoffman, 2000). Thus, another force working against empathy ispeoples reluctance to recognize a target as sentient (Batson, 1991).Indeed, individuals who dehumanize other ethnic groups tend toempathize with them less (see Haslam, 2006). One means to recog-nizing nonhumans as sentient is anthropomorphismdattribution ofhuman qualities to nonhumans (Guthrie, 1993). One study (Riek,Rabinowitch, Chakrabarti, & Robinson, 2009) found that peopleempathize with robots more when they are humanlike. Thus, it isproposed that anthropomorphism is associated with DEN (Proposi-tion 4). This proposition has been speculated by others too (e.g.,Chawla, 2009; Clayton, Fraser, & Burgess, 2011). For instance, Batson(2011) acknowledged that people may nd it difcult to empathizewith the environment unless it is personalized.

Anthropomorphism of nature has been widely observed indifferent cultures (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007; Guthrie, 1993),but there have been just a few studies on its role in conservationbehavior. Gebhard, Nevers, and Billmann-Mahecha (2003) foundthat young children who spontaneously ascribed mental andemotional qualities to natural entities showed heightened concerntoward them. Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley (2010) found that thetendency to anthropomorphize nonhumans in general predictedhow concerned they were about the environment. Atran et al.(2002) found that Itza Maya, who believed in the existence ofspirits in the natural world, exhibited more ecological practicesthan did other cultures in the neighboring area. Testing the presentproposition enables one to examine directly the link betweenanthropomorphism of nature and conservation behavior, and themediating role of DEN. Support to these hypotheses can once againillustrate the theoretical value of DEN.

3.4. The present research

The present research tests the four propositions in ve studies.Studies 1e3 validate a scale for DEN. Propositions 1 and 2 will betested in all ve studies. Proposition 3 will be tested in Study 4,while Proposition 4will be tested in Study 5. Because it is importantto demonstrate that a new construct is conceptually and empiri-cally distinct from other related constructs (Block, 1995), thedistinctiveness of DEN will be assessed in Studies 1 and 2.

Sears (1986) reported evidence regarding differences betweenadolescents and adults, and between college students and non-students. It is of concern whether using a sample of un-dergraduates produces similar or different ndings as using a moreheterogeneous sample. One way to cope with this concern is tocross-validate the ndings in diverse samples. Accordingly, bothundergraduates and working adults will be used. Some studies

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104have identied cultural difference in environmentalism (see

2004), a single factor was expected for these items. To ascertain

respectively, on a 7-point scale (1 strongly irrelevante7 strongly

entarelevant). For each item, the mean rating on each question acrossthe three reviewers was computed. As expected, all 12 items wereregarded as highly relevant to DEN (Ms ranging from 6.00 to 7.00).Also, in terms of relevance to perspective taking, the ve itemsregarding perspective taking (Ms 7.00) were indeed higher thanthe seven items regarding empathic concern (Ms ranging from 2.67to 5.67); in terms of relevance to empathic concern, the empathicconcern items (Ms ranging from 6.33 to 6.67) were indeed higherthan the perspective taking items (Ms ranging from 4.67 to 6.00).their content validity, an expert review was conducted (seeDeVellis, 2003). Three social psychologists (PhD holders with atleast four years of research experience after doctoral graduation)were shown the denitions of DEN, perspective taking andempathic concern. They then rated how relevant each of theseitems was to DEN, perspective taking, and empathic concern,Milfont, 2012). In addition, empathy, as a form of other-focusedemotions, is considered to be more frequently experienced in cul-tures that emphasize interdependence between the self and othersthan cultures that emphasize independence (Markus & Kitayama,1991). Though the present research does not aim to be a cross-cultural comparison, given the concern about the generalizabilityof ndings across cultures, the ve studies will involve samplesfrom two different cultures.

4. Study 1

Study 1 aimed to validate the Dispositional Empathy with Na-ture Scale (DENS hereafter). Propositions 1 and 2 were tested. Thedistinctiveness of DEN was also examined.

4.1. Scale construction

Daviss (1983) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI hereafter) hasbeen considered the best measure for empathy as it taps bothcognitive and emotional components (Baron-Cohen &Wheelwright, 2004). Its scores predict not only prosocialbehavior (Konrath et al., 2011), but also empathy-related biologicalactivities (Singer et al., 2004). The IRI species four aspects ofempathy: fantasy, perspective taking, empathic concern, and per-sonal distress. However, only perspective taking and empathicconcern are considered relevant to empathy (Baron-Cohen &Wheelwright, 2004; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Konrath et al.,2011). Personal distress (e.g., I tend to lose control during emer-gencies) is self-focused, not other-oriented, and therefore does nott the denition of empathy. When an individual views anotherperson who is sad and, as a consequence, feels anxious and con-cerned about his or her own welfare, this is personal distress, notempathy (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Fantasy refers to the tendencyto imaginatively transpose oneself into hypothetical scenarios (e.g.,I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things thatmight happen to me). Although imagination is related to empathy,it should not be taken as empathy itself. With reference to the itemson perspective taking and empathic concern in the IRI, 12 itemswere written. Five items captured perspective taking. They useddifferent wordings to refer to the tendency to spontaneously takethe perspective of certain natural entities in distress. The remainingseven items captured empathic concern. They referred to the ten-dency to share the distress of certain natural entities and experi-ence compassionate feelings toward them. As cognitive andaffective components of empathy are inter-related (Davis, 1983)and even empirically inseparable (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright,

K.-P. Tam / Journal of EnvironmThese ndings demonstrate the content validity of the scale items.As discussed, the present research centers on distress. Thus, ashort instruction guided participants to consider instances inwhichnature was in distress (e.g., pollution, deforestation). The itemsspecied the experience of animals and plants but not inanimateentities because animals and plants are core in peoples mentalrepresentations of nature (van den Born, Lenders, de Groot, &Huijsman, 2001), and psychological reactions toward animate ele-ments are often generalizable to nature as a whole (Berenguer,2007) and serves as the basis of general concern for theecosystem (Myers, Saunders, & Garrett, 2004).

4.2. Distinctiveness of DEN

Many other dispositional variables also motivate conservationbehavior. It is important to consider how DEN is related to ordistinct from these variables (see Block, 1995).

Personality traits predict conservation behavior. For instance,Hirsh and Dolderman (2007) reported that both openness toexperience and agreeableness predict environmentalism (see alsoMarkowitz, Goldberg, Ashton, & Lee, 2012). Dispositional empathyis associatedwith personality traits too. It is considered to be part ofthe altruism facet of agreeableness (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006).Also, as empathy to some extent involves imagination ability, it isrelated to openness to experience (Mooradian, Davis, & Matzler,2011). It is thus expected that DEN is related, but not reducible toagreeableness and openness (as empathy is not related to the otherfacets of agreeableness and openness).

Values also predict conservation behavior. Schultz and Zelezny(1998) observed a positive relationship between self-transcendencevalues and proenvironmental behavior in various cultures. Disposi-tional empathy is related to self-transcendence values too (Myyry &Helkama, 2001), as the latter also entail concerns about the envi-ronment and other peoples needs. It is thus expected that DEN isrelated, but not reducible to self-transcendence values (as self-transcendence values also involve other unrelated aspects).

Kals, Schumacher, and Montada (1999) introduced the conceptof emotional afnity toward nature, which refers to emotional in-clinations, particularly positive ones, toward nature (e.g., feelinggood, free, and safe in nature). Although both DEN and emotionalafnity concern emotions, the former is other-focused, while thelatter refer to self-oriented emotions. It is thus expected that DEN isrelated, but not reducible to emotional afnity toward nature.

Concern about the environment is determined by how muchimportance people place on themselves (egoistic), other people(altruistic), or plants and animals (biospheric). It has been foundthat IEN enhances biospheric concern (see Schultz, 2000). Thus,DEN should be related to biospheric concern. However, DEN is notreducible to biospheric concern, as the latter does not specifyempathy as the source of the concern. A person may showbiospheric concern because he or she considers the biosphere to beintrinsically valuable, for instance.

In all, it is expected that DEN is related, but not reducible, to theconcepts named above. It is also expected that DEN uniquely andindependently predicts conservation behavior.

4.3. Method

Two hundred and eighty-eight ethnic Chinese undergraduates(157 males, 130 females, and 1 unreported; Mage 20.39 andSDage 1.28 years) in Hong Kong participated for partial coursefulllment. Participants understood English (English is the primarymedium of instruction in universities in Hong Kong). All materialswere in English therefore.

The participants completed the DENS and the following mea-

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104 95sures on a 7-point scale, if not specied otherwise, and all measures

were presented in a completely randomized order (the same ap-plies to all subsequent studies). Traits were assessed by the Big FiveInventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; as .77 for extraversion,.68 for agreeableness, .78 for conscientiousness, .82 for neuroticism,and .86 for openness). Values were measured by the Schwartz(1992) Value Questionnaire: Participants indicated the impor-tance of each value on a 9-point scale (0 not important at alle8 extremely important; as .85 for self-enhancement, .83 foropenness, .88 for self-transcendence, and .81 for conservation).Participants also completed the Emotional Afnity Toward NatureScale (Kals et al., 1999; a .82), and the Environmental MotivesScale (Schultz, 2001). In the latter, participants indicated to whatextent they were concerned about 12 items (e.g., my future, chil-dren, birds; as .87 for biospheric concern, .83 for egoistic concern,and .83 for altruistic concern). Public conservation behavior wasmeasured by a scale on environmental movement support (e.g., Iwould like to support an environmentalist organization) from theEnvironmental Attitudes Inventory (Milfont & Duckitt, 2010;a .86). For private behavior, participants reported how frequently(1 nevere5 very often) they performed 12 behavior (see Ap-pendix) adopted from past studies (e.g., Kaiser, Doka, Hofstetter, &Ranney, 2003; a .83). In previous studies (Tam, 2013; Tam, inpress), this measure was correlated with environmental move-ment support, and commitment to volunteering for an environ-mental cause, indicating its validity.

4.4. Results and discussion

A principal axis factoring analysis on the 12 items of DENSrevealed a one-factor structure (Eigenvalue 6.11, with 50.90% ofvariance explained). However, two items had low factor loadings

One of these items (I feel protective towards the suffering animalsand plants) had low variance (SD< 1.00), possibly because its tonerenders disagreement with it highly undesirable. The other item (Itry to put myself in the shoes of the suffering animals and plants)had low item-total correlation (r .37), possibly because theexpression used was not direct enough. Accordingly, these twoitems were dropped. Another factor analysis performed on theremaining 10 items revealed a one-factor structure(Eigenvalue 5.70, with 56.96% of variance explained). The factorloadings and the internal reliability were high (see Table 1). These10 items formed the nal DENS.

An overall DEN score was computed by averaging the itemscores. Because age, income, and education level did not show anyconsistent relationship with DEN or conservation behavior in anystudy, they were not reported. As expected, DEN was signicantlycorrelated with agreeableness, r .22, p < .001, and openness,r .12, p < .05. It was also correlated with extraversion, r .21,p < .001. However, it is noteworthy that all these correlations werejust weak. Dispositional empathy with nature was neither signi-cantly correlated with conscientiousness, r .08, nor neuroticism,r .03. As expected, DEN was signicantly correlated with self-transcendence values, r .32, p < .001, and this correlation wasmedium inmagnitude. Dispositional empathy with nature was alsosignicantly correlated with self-enhancement, r .12, p < .05,openness, r .23, p < .001, and conservation, r .25, p < .001, butthese correlations were weak. It was correlated moderately withemotional afnity toward nature, r .36, p< .001, moderately withbiospheric concern, r .48, p < .001, and weakly with altruisticconcern, r .18, p < .01. It was not correlated with egoistic concern,r .07. In all, DEN showed theoretically informed relationshipswith the other concepts. These relationships were just weak to

g hol, foe of

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 92e10496(

Dispositional empathy with nature predicted conservationbehavior: It was correlated with environmental movement sup-port, r .36, p < .001, and green behavior frequency, r .26,p < .001. A hierarchical regression analysis was then performed. InModel 1, conservation behavior was regressed on traits, values,emotional involvement with nature, and environmental concern. InModel 2, DEN was added. Model 1 explained a signicant propor-tion of variance of environmental movement support, R2 .37,p < .001. Adding DEN in Model 2 signicantly improved the pre-diction, R2 change .02, b .14, p < .05. Similarly, Model 1explained a signicant proportion of variance of green behaviorfrequency, R2 .13, p < .01. Adding DEN signicantly improved theprediction, R2 change .02, b .14, p < .05. These ndings supportProposition 1, and demonstrate the incremental validity of DEN.

Female participants had stronger DEN than did male partici-pants (M 4.43 vs. 4.21), and this difference was marginally sig-

predict concern about nature. For instance, Berenguer (2010) foundthat induced empathy with another person activated anthropo-centric, but not ecological, concern. Second, empathy is target-specic: Empathy with humans does not even necessarily entailempathy toward a specic subset of humans. For instance, Hojatet al. (2001) found that medical professionals empathy towardpatients was just moderately correlatedwith their general empathywith humans. Third, it is more difcult for people to empathizewith nonhumans than humans (Batson,1991). As noted, empathy isusually limited to close others, and people do not always considernatural entities and the abstract notion of nature to be as close asother humans (Gutsell & Inzlicht, in press). Also, not everyonewould recognize the natural world or certain natural elements to beas sentient as humans (Waytz et al., 2010). Taken together, a personwho empathizes with other human beings does not necessarilyempathize with nature to an equal extent. It is thus expected that

Americans, 5.23% Hispanics, 5.23% mixed ethnicity, 4.65% Asian

c

*

*

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104 97nicant, t(284) 1.82, p .07. Also, compared to males, femalesreported more environmental movement support (M 4.82 vs.4.47), t(283) 3.29, p < .001, but not green behavior frequency(M 2.70 vs. 2.66). Mediational analyses were then performed totest if DEN mediated this gender difference. The approach recom-mended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was followed. As shown inTable 2, paths aec, and c0 were all signicant. According to a Sobeltest, there was a marginally signicant drop from path c to path c0.To further the condence in this nding, another analytic strategy,bootstrapping, was used. It is a resampling procedure which hasbeen advocated by many for testing mediation (e.g., MacKinnon,Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). Bootstrapping with 5000 re-samples was used, and bias-corrected 95% condence interval (BC95% CI) of the indirect effect of DEN was examined. As Table 2shows, the hypothesized indirect effect was signicant (i.e., theBC 95% C.I. not including 0). These ndings support Proposition 2,and show that DEN partially mediates the gender difference inconservation behavior.

5. Study 2

To cross-validate the key ndings, Study 2 used a sample ofdiverse background from a non-Chinese society. Propositions 1 and2 were tested again.

5.1. Distinctiveness of DEN

Past studies have shown that empathy with humans also predictconcern for nature (e.g., Schultz, 2001). One may question if DEN isdistinct from dispositional empathy with humans. There are threereasons to expect so. First, empathy with humans does not always

Table 2Mediational analyses with gender as the predictor.

Outcome variables Unstandardized regression coefcients

Path a Path b Path

Study 1Environmental movement support .23* .30*** .36*Study 2Environmental movement support .58** .45*** .45*Study 3Environmental movement support .62* .30*** .39*Green behavior frequency .62* .13** .21*Study 4Environmental movement support .44*** .47*** .32*Study 5Environmental movement support .48 .39*** .59*

Notes. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. p < .10. Path a refers to the path from gender tocontrolled). Path c refers to the path from gender to the outcome variable. Path c0 refersAmericans, and the remaining unreported). They were recruitedthrough Amazons Mechanical Turk (http://www.mturk.com), awebsite that contains a large register of workers. Workers canbrowse available tasks and choose to work on a particular task andget paid upon successful completion. This platform allows re-searchers to recruit participants and collect data from them allthrough the internet. Buhrmester, Kwang, and Gosling (2011)showed that data collected via this method are at least as reliableas those collected using traditional methods. Participants were toldthat the study explored their attitudes toward some environmentalissues. Apart from the DENS and the two conservation behavior

Sobel test Z statistics Bootstrapping BC 95% CI

Path c0

.28** 1.80 .00, .16

.18 2.56* .08, .48

.20 2.26* .04, .44

.13 1.94* .02, .21

.12 3.15** .10, .35

.40 1.69 .02, .50there is certain overlap between DEN and dispositional empathywith humans (perspective taking and empathic concern, but notfantasy and personal distress, in the IRI), but such overlap should befar from perfect.

Batson (2011) argued that existing measures of dispositionalempathy with humans are potentially confounded by social desir-ability. These doubts can be addressed by the fact that scores onthese measures can predict actual prosocial behavior (e.g., Konrathet al., 2011) and even physiological processes related to empathy(Singer et al., 2004). It is thus expected that DEN is related, justweakly, to social desirability bias.

5.2. Method

One hundred and seventy-two individuals (65 males and 107females; Mage 32.77 and SDage 13.90 years) who had beenresiding in the U.S. for at least 10 years participated. Each partici-pant was compensated USD0.30. Most participants were Caucasian(78.49%). The remaining were of various ethnicities (5.81% AfricanDEN. Path b refers to the path from DEN to the outcome variable (when gender wasto the path from gender to the outcome variable (when DEN was controlled).

entameasures (as .93 and .87 respectively), they completed the IRI(as .79, .81, .83, and .85 for fantasy, perspective taking, empathicconcern, and personal distress, respectively) and the Social Desir-ability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; a .81).


The one-factor structure of the DENS was replicated. As shownin Table 1, both factor loadings and internal reliability were high. Asexpected, DEN was signicantly correlated with perspective taking,r .18, p < .05, and empathic concern, r .29, p < .001, but thesecorrelations were just weak. Also, DEN was neither correlated withfantasy, r .12, nor personal distress, r .02. Dispositional empathywith nature was just weakly correlated with social desirability bias,r .18, p < .05. In sum, the distinctiveness of DEN was found.

Supporting Proposition 1, DEN was signicantly correlated withenvironmental movement support, r .48, p < .001, and greenbehavior frequency, r .46, p < .001. A hierarchical regressionanalysis revealed that DEN continued to predict conservationbehavior evenwhen dispositional empathy with humans and socialdesirability bias were controlled, demonstrating the incrementalvalidity of DEN. When predicting environmental movement sup-port, DEN led to a signicant improvement in prediction (Model 1R2 .15, p < .001; Model 2 R2 change .16, b .42, p < .001). Thesame was true for green behavior frequency (Model 1 R2 .12,p < .05; Model 2 R2 change .17, b .43, p < .001).

Supporting Proposition 2, female participants had signicantlystronger DEN than did male participants (M 4.27 vs. 3.70),t(170) 2.75, p < .01. Also, compared to males, females reportedmore environmental movement support (M 4.51 vs. 4.06),t(170) 2.21, p < .05, but not green behavior frequency (M 2.87vs. 2.75). Replicating Study 1, mediational analyses revealed a sig-nicant, complete mediation by DEN (see Table 2).

6. Study 3

DEN is assumed to be a stable trait. If the DENS truly measuresDEN, then it scores should be temporally consistent (DeVellis,2003). Study 3 thus assessed the testeretest reliability of theDENS. Propositions 1 and 2 were tested again. To continue to cross-validate the key ndings, a sample of working adults was used.

6.1. Method

One hundred and four ethnic Chinese employees (35 males and69 females; Mage 31.83 and SDage 9.36 years) from a universityin Hong Kong participated. Each participant was compensatedHKD70 (approximately USD9). Participants understood English(English is the ofcial language in universities in Hong Kong). Thisstudy was thus administered in English. Participants completed theDENS and the two measures for conservation behavior (as .84and .84 respectively). One month later, these participants wereinvited to complete the DENS again. Ninety-two participants (32males and 60 females) took part in this second phase.


The one-factor structure of the DENS was replicated. As shownin Table 1, both factor loadings and internal reliability were high.Participants DEN scores were very strongly inter-correlated be-tween Time 1 and Time 2, r .81, p < .001, indicating testeretestreliability.

Supporting Proposition 1, DEN was signicantly correlated withenvironmental movement support, r .45, p < .001, and green

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environm98behavior frequency, r .31, p < .001.Supporting Proposition 2, female participants had stronger DENthan did male participants (M 4.75 vs. 4.13), t(101) 2.57, p< .05.Also, compared to males, females reported more environmentalmovement support (M 4.87 vs. 4.48), t(101) 2.23, p < .05, andgreen behavior frequency (M 3.02 vs. 2.80), t(101) 1.92, p .05.Replicating Studies 1 and 2, mediational analyses revealed a sig-nicant, complete mediation by DEN in these gender differences(see Table 2).

7. Study 4

The objective of Study 4 was to test Proposition 3. Propositions 1and 2 were also tested.

7.1. Method

One hundred and seventy-ve ethnic Chinese undergraduates(92 males and 83 females; Mage 20.93 and SDage 1.30 years) inHong Kong participated for partial course fulllment. They had notparticipated in Study 1. All materials were in English. Apart fromthe DENS and the two conservation behavior measures (as .80and .87, respectively; a 7-point scale was also used for greenbehavior frequency), the participants completed two measures forconnection to nature. The Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer &Frantz, 2004) measures the affective aspect of connection to nature.It has been widely accepted as reliable and valid (e.g., Gosling &Williams, 2010; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Sample items include Ioften feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around meand I often feel disconnected from nature. The second measure,the Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (Schultz, 2001), assesses thecognitive aspect of connection to nature. This scale contains oneitem: Participants were shown seven pairs of circles (one labeledself and the other labeled nature) with varying degrees ofoverlap and asked to select the pair that best described their rela-tionship with nature. These two measures are strongly inter-correlated, and correlated with other measures of connection tonature (Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011; Perkins, 2010).


The one-factor structure of the DENS was replicated. As shownin Table 1, both factor loadings and internal reliability were high.

Supporting Proposition 1, DEN was signicantly correlated withboth environmental movement support, r .51, p< .001, and greenbehavior frequency, r .39, p < .001.

Supporting Proposition 2, female participants had stronger DENthan did male participants (M 5.11 vs. 4.67), t(173) 3.47,p < .001. Also, females reported more environmental movementsupport than did males (M 4.81 vs. 4.49), t(173) 2.66, p < .01,but not green behavior frequency (M 4.30 vs. 4.18). ReplicatingStudies 1e3, mediational analyses revealed a signicant, completemediation by DEN (see Table 2).

Supporting Proposition 3, DEN was signicantly correlated withboth connectedness to nature, r .59, p < .001, and inclusion ofnature in self, r .27, p < .001. Replicating past studies (e.g., Mayer& Frantz, 2004), connection to nature predicted conservationbehavior. Connectedness to nature was correlated with both envi-ronmental movement support, r .52, p< .001, and green behaviorfrequency, r .41, p < .001. The same was true for inclusion ofnature in self (r .35, p < .001, and r .30, p < .001, respectively).The two mediational analytic approaches were used to test if DENmediated the effect of connection to nature on conservationbehavior (see Table 3). Regardless of which predictor and whichoutcome were considered, paths aec, and c0 were all signicant,

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104and there was a signicant drop from path c to path c0, indicating a

Table 3Mediational analyses with connection to nature or anthropomorphism as the predictor and DEN as the mediator (Studies 4 and 5).

Outcome variables Unstandardized regression coefcients Sobel test Z statistics Bootstrapping BC 95% CI

Path a Path b Path c Path c0

Study 4Connectedness to nature

Environmental movement support .77*** .30*** .64*** .41*** 3.84*** .12, .35Green behavior frequency .77*** .21** .50*** .33** 2.58** .02, .30

Inclusion of nature in selfEnvironmental movement support .15*** .43*** .18*** .11*** 3.19** .03, .12Green behavior frequency .15*** .31*** .16*** .11** 2.83** .01, .09Study 5

ls*

*

l en

*

redivari

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104 99partial mediation by DEN. This indirect effect was also signicant(i.e., the BC 95% C.I. not including 0) when the bootstrappinganalysis was used.

It isnoteworthy that a set of exploratoryanalyses revealed that thereverse direction of the path tested earlier could be true (see Table 4).WhenDENwas used as the predictor and connection to nature as themediator instead, paths aec, and c0were all signicant, and therewasa drop from path c to path c0. Sobel tests and bootstrapping analysessimilarly revealed signicant indirect effects by connection to nature.The implication of this reverse path (connection to nature as themediator) will be discussed in General Discussion.

8. Study 5

The objective of Study 5 was to test Proposition 4. Propositions 1and 2 were also tested.

Anthropomorphism of nonhuman animaEnvironmental movement support .23* .37*** .30*Green behavior frequency .23* .27** .27*

Anthropomorphism of nonanimal naturaEnvironmental movement support .19* .40*** .15*Green behavior frequency .19* .29** .15*

Anthropomorphism of natureEnvironmental movement support .23** .39*** .18*Green behavior frequency .23** .28** .18*

Notes. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. p < .10. Path a refers to the path from the ppredictor was controlled). Path c refers to the path from the predictor to the outcomewas controlled).8.1. Method

Seventy-eight ethnic Chinese undergraduates (54 males and 24females; Mage 20.55 and SDage 1.51 years) in Hong Kongparticipated for partial course fulllment. These participants hadnot participated in Studies 1 and 4. All materials were in English.Apart from the DENS and the two conservation behavior measures(as .88, and .86, respectively; a 7-point scale was used for greenbehavior frequency), participants completed the 15-item IndividualDifferences in Anthropomorphism Questionnaire (Waytz et al.,2010). For each item, participants indicated to what extent a

Table 4Mediational analyses with DEN as the predictor and connection to nature as the mediat

Outcome variables Unstandardized regression coefcients

Path a Path b Path c

Connectedness to natureEnvironmental movement support .45*** .41*** .49***Green behavior frequency .45*** .33** .36***

Inclusion of nature in selfEnvironmental movement support .47*** .12*** .49***Green behavior frequency .47*** .11** .36***

Notes. ***p< .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. Path a refers to the path from DEN to the mediator.controlled). Path c refers to the path from DEN to the outcome variable. Path c0 refers tononhuman entity has a human characteristic (e.g., a mind of itsown, emotional experience). Five entities pertained to technolog-ical devices (e.g., TV set, robot), ve to nonhuman animals (e.g., sh,cow), and ve to nonanimal natural entities (e.g., tree, wind). Afactor analysis revealed a neat 3-factor structure; an average scorewas therefore computed for each factor. Also, to examine partici-pants tendency to anthropomorphize the general notion of nature,participants answered another set of ve items regarding nature(Towhat extent does nature have amind of its own/intentions/freewill/consciousness/emotional experience?). In a separate series ofstudies, these items were found to be valid and predictive of con-servation behavior (Tam, 2013; Tam, in press). These various scalesof anthropomorphism were reliable (as .79, .80, .91, and .90,respectively).


.21* 1.94* .01, .22

.20** 1.86 .01, .17tities

.08 2.07* .02, .19

.09 1.99* .01, .13

.09 2.31* .02, .22

.11 2.17* .02, .16

ctor to DEN. Path b refers to the path from DEN to the outcome variable (when theable. Path c0 refers to the path from the predictor to the outcome variable (when DENThe one-factor structure of the DENS was replicated. As shownin Table 1, both factor loadings and internal reliability were high.

Supporting Proposition 1, DEN was signicantly correlated withboth environmental movement support, r .44, p < .01, and greenbehavior frequency, r .41, p < .01.

Supporting Proposition 2, female participants had stronger DENthan did male participants (M 4.60 vs. 4.12), and this differencewas marginally signicant, t(76) 1.87, p .06. Also, compared tomales, females reported more environmental movement support(M 4.86 vs. 4.27), t(76) 2.40, p < .05, but not green behaviorfrequency (M 4.40 vs. 4.06). Replicating Studies 1e4, mediational

or (Study 4).

Sobel test Z statistics Bootstrapping BC 95% CI

Path c0

.30*** 3.91*** .09, .30

.21** 3.11** .06, .25

.43*** 2.48* .02, .12

.31** 2.29* .01, .11

Path b refers to the path from the mediator to the outcome variable (when DEN wasthe path from DEN to the outcome variable (when the mediator was controlled).

entaanalyses revealed a signicant, partial mediation by DEN in thisgender difference (see Table 2).

Supporting Proposition 4, DEN was signicantly correlated withnature-related anthropomorphism: It was correlated with anthro-pomorphism of nonhuman animals, r .25, p < .05, that ofnonanimal natural entities, r .27, p < .05, and that of nature,r .32, p < .01. Expectedly, DEN was not correlated with anthro-pomorphism of technological devices, r .10. Anthropomorphismof nature predicted conservation behavior. Anthropomorphism ofnonhuman animals was correlated with environmental movementsupport, r .33, p < .01, and green behavior frequency, r .36,p < .01. The same was found for anthropomorphism of nonanimalnatural entities (r .23, p < .05, and r .27, p < .05, respectively),and that of nature (r .25, p< .05, and r .30, p< .01, respectively).Anthropomorphism of technological devices was not correlatedwith conservation behavior (r .12, and r .17, respectively). Thetwo mediational analytic approaches were used to test if DENmediated the effect of anthropomorphism on conservationbehavior (see Table 3). Regardless of which form of anthropomor-phism and conservation behavior were considered, paths aec wereall signicant, and path c0 was signicant some of the time. Therewas a signicant drop from path c to path c0, indicating a mediationby DEN (partial for anthropomorphism of nonhuman animals, andcomplete for anthropomorphism of natural entities and nature).This indirect effect was also signicant (i.e., the BC 95% C.I notincluding 0) when the bootstrapping analysis was considered.

9. Meta-analyses

The multiple-sample design of the present research renders ameta-analysis to combine the ndings across studies possible. Thisanalysis can estimate the overall size of the effect in the population,and check if this effect varies across the diverse samples used(Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Regarding Proposition 1, as for environ-mental movement support, the weightedmean correlationwas .44.A xed-effects meta-analysis with Fisher z as the effect size statisticrevealed a weighted mean z of .47, 95% CI [.40, .54], Z 13.31,p < .001; this effect was not heterogeneous across samples,Qw(4) 4.45, p .35. A similar nding was obtained for greenbehavior frequency (weighted mean correlation .35; weightedmean z .37, 95% CI [.30, .44], Z 10.44, p < .001; Qw(4) 6.69,p .15). Regarding Proposition 2, the weighted mean gender dif-ference was .40. A xed-effects meta-analysis with Hedges g as theeffect size statistic revealed a weighted mean g of .39, 95% CI [.25,.53], Z 5.37, p < .001; this effect was not heterogeneous acrosssamples, Qw(4) 3.58, p .47. Using random-effects analyses orother effect size indicators generated similar results. Based on thesendings, it can be concluded that there is a moderate to strongassociation between DEN and conservation behavior in the popu-lation, and a signicant gender difference of DEN in the population.These effects manifested homogenously in the diverse samplesused.

10. General discussion

Although the primacy of empathy with nature in conservationefforts has been suggested (e.g., Guergachi et al., 2010; Sobel, 1996),an elaborate understanding of it, particularly from the personalityperspective, has been lacking. The present research lls this void.

10.1. Theory of empathy with nature

Several tenets formulate what is known thus far about empathywith nature. First, empathy with nature is a distinct construct; it is

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environm100not reducible to empathy with humans, general dispositions (e.g.,traits, values), and other environmental concepts (e.g., emotionalinvolvement with nature, connection to nature). Second, empathywith nature, either dispositional or induced, motivates efforts toprotect nature. Third, some dispositional factors (e.g., gender,connection to nature, anthropomorphism of nature) account forindividual differences in the dispositional tendency to engage inempathy with nature. Fourth, stronger empathy with nature ap-pears to be a reasonwhy females, individuals who feel connected tonature, and people who consider nature to be sentient are moreproenvironmental.

The theory of empathy with nature is still in its infant stage. Tofurther develop this theory, three directions for future studies arethus discussed next.

10.1.1. Deriving new propositionsThe present investigation was set up with close reference to

extant understanding about empathy with humans. The two formsof empathy, though distinct, appear to have some similarities. Bothmotivate protective behavior, and both are stronger among in-dividuals who have a more expanded self. Also, connectedness toother beings and recognition of their sentience antecede bothforms of empathy. It appears that the psychological processesknown to be associated with empathy with humans apply toempathy with nature too, though the exact parameters in theseprocesses are target-specic. For instance, given that connected-ness (e.g., interpersonal closeness) enhances empathy toward otherpeople (e.g., Gutsell & Inzlicht, in press), connectedness to thenatural world should promote empathy with nature, as demon-strated. Apparently, one can further develop the theory of empathywith nature by deriving other propositions from existing, moreestablished knowledge about empathy with humans. An illustra-tion is provided here.

Empathy is separable from personal distress. Nevertheless, it ispossible that under some circumstances empathy could lead topersonal distress. When an individual empathizes with a sufferingvictim, he or she experiences the victims distress as if it was his orher own. However, when the victims distress becomes too intenseand unbearable, the empathizing individual may turn away fromthe victims perspective, and shift to his or her own anxiety,discomfort, and welfare. This phenomenon is referred to asempathic overarousal (Hoffman, 2008). One possible consequenceof empathic overarousal is that the empathizing individual stopsempathizing and offering help. Hoffman (2008) pointed out thatpeople are particularly vulnerable to empathic overarousal whenthey feel unable to help the victim (see also Belman & Flanagan,2010; Myers et al., 2009). One may derive a new propositionregarding empathy with nature accordingly. Although generallyempathizing with nature can motivate conservation behavior, abelief in the effectiveness of ones actions in helping the naturalenvironment is imperative too. This belief has been referred to asperceived consumer effectiveness (e.g., Ellen, Wiener, & Cobb-Walgren, 1991) or environmental self-efcacy (e.g., Homburg &Stolberg, 2006). Future survey studies may test if DEN predictsconservation behavior only among individuals who possess astrong sense of efcacy. Experiments may test if intention toperform conservation behavior is strongest among participantswho take the perspective of nature and at the same time believethat their actions make a difference. Studies like these certainlyenable more intricate theoretical understanding of empathy withnature.

10.1.2. Comparing empathy with humans and empathy with natureSome studies showed that dispositional empathy with humans

(measured by the IRI) predict environmental attitude and behavior.

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104For instance, Schultz (2001) showed that both perspective taking

in a camp and exchanging perspectives with animals, childrendeveloped more empathy toward nature. There are other innovative

entaand empathic concern predicted biospheric concern. Study 3 in thepresent research also revealed that perspective taking andempathic concern were positively correlated with environmentalmovement support (r .26, p < .01, and r .37, p < .001, respec-tively), and green behavior frequency (r .26, p < .01, and r .24,p < .01, respectively); these relationships were still signicant,though weakened, when DEN was controlled for. However, it isnoteworthy that some studies did not nd this pattern. Forinstance, Sevillano et al. (2007) showed that perspective taking didnot predict environmental concern, while empathic concern evennegatively predicted biospheric concern. How can this inconsis-tency be reconciled?

A speculative account is proposed here: For some individuals,the boundary between humans and nature is blurred, and thereforethe distinction between dispositional empathy with humans andDEN is less clear-cut. Some individuals consider themselves to bepart of nature (e.g., individuals who feel connected to nature;Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2000), while some consider humansto be separate, or even above, nature (e.g., individuals who rejectnew ecological paradigm; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995). Also,some individuals consider nature to be humanlike (e.g., anthro-pomorphism; Tam, 2013; Tam, in press; Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013),while some do not. It is conceivable to expect that among thoseindividuals to whom the boundary between humans and nature isblurred, empathy with humans actually entails empathy with na-ture, and the vice versa, while among other individuals, this is notthe case. Thus, it is expected that for the former group of in-dividuals, dispositional empathy with humans and DEN are moreinter-related, and both predict conservation behavior, while for thelatter group, the two forms of empathy are less inter-related, andonly DEN predict conservation behavior. This account, thoughspeculative, is potentially useful in further delineating the rela-tionship between the two forms of empathy. Future studies toverify this account are needed.

10.1.3. Understanding empathic joyAs noted, the present research centers on the distress of the

natural world for three pragmatic reasons: This focus renders closereference to existing understanding of empathy of humanspossible; this focus connects the present research to previousworks on IEN; and the notion of empathy with nature has usuallybeen discussed in the context of environmental degradation. Thisfocus on distress is also justied on a theoretical reason: Peoplesempathic reactions appear to be more readily aroused by thedistress in others than its positive counterpart, and this asymmetryseems to be biologically based (see Royzman & Kumar, 2001).Nevertheless, these reasons do not completely rule out the possi-bility that people empathize with nature when events benecial tothe natural world happen. Future studies may therefore studyempathy with nature in a positive context instead. One may additems to the DENS that capture respondents tendency to take theperspective of certain natural entities facing positive events and toshare their emotions. It will be important to explore whether re-sponses to the negative and positive items fall into one factor ortwo factors. If two factors emerge, then there is a need to examinewhether positive empathy also predicts conservation behavior aswell as the current formulation of DEN does.

10.2. Contributions to understanding conservation behavior

The construct of DEN contributes to the understanding of con-servation behavior by shedding new light on three under-exploredtheoretical issues. First, although the robust gender gap in envi-ronmentalism has been attributed to the gender difference in so-

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environmcialization (e.g., McCright, 2010), the more proximal mediatingmethods for perspective taking exercises to take place when thenatural environment is not accessible. For instance, McKnight (2010)proposed that story-like narratives which connect children to ananimal can provide a simulated encounter with animals. Also,Belman and Flanagan (2010) discussed the use of computer gamesthat allow players to inhabit the roles of other members in thenatural world in an immersive manner. It is noteworthy that on topof cultivating empathy, it is also crucial to build up a sense of efcacybecause, as discussed, empathy may lead to overarousal when anindividual feels unable to help change the victims situation(Hoffman, 2008). Efcacy enhancement, or empowerment, can beachieved through experience-based education. For instance, Monroe(2003) suggested that students, teachers, and other parties at stakecan work together to identify, plan, and solve a local environmentalproblem; through this experience the various parties can learnrsthand how their actions make a difference. Monroe (2003)further suggested this actual experience can be supplemented bystories or examples of other peoples successful experience.

It should be noted that the effectiveness of the aforementionedprograms (e.g., McKnight, 2010; Sobel, 1996) was not assessed witha standard validatedmeasure. It is thus impossible to compare theirefcacy. The DENS, which proves to be reliable and valid, may beuseful in this regard. However, towhat extent the DENS is useful forchildren or other populations not covered in the present research isunknown. Future works may focus on validating the DENS in thesepopulations. When needed, adaptation or revision could bemechanism underlying this gap is not yet well understood (seeZelezny et al. 2000). The present studies identify empathy as apossible mechanism. It appears that females, who are more so-cialized to value other beings needs than are males, empathizewith the natural world to a larger extent, and in turn exhibit morenature-protecting behavior. Second, although connection to natureis known to be a robust determinant of proenvironmental behavior(e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004), its mediating mechanism has rarelybeen studied (see Gosling & Williams, 2010). The present researchshows that one mechanism may reside in DEN. It seems that in-dividuals who feel connected to nature empathize with nature to alarger extent, and in turn show more conservation behavior. Theexploratory ndings from Study 4 suggest that empathy with na-ture could also enhance connection to nature. This implies thepossibility that DEN and connection to nature mutually inuenceeach other. Because of its non-experimental design, the presentresearch falls short in testing this bidirectionality. Longitudinal orexperimental designs could be useful in future testing of thisbidirectional model (see Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). Third,although anthropomorphism of nature is prevalent across cultures(e.g., Epley et al., 2007; Guthrie, 1993), there has been little evi-dence about its effect on conservation behavior. Joining the rarepast studies (Atran et al., 2002; Gebhard et al., 2003; Waytz et al.,2010), the present research provides this evidence, and identiesDEN as the mediating mechanism.

10.3. Implications for environmental promotion

Some have identied the role of emotions in environmentalpromotion (Kals et al., 1999; McKnight, 2010; Sobel, 1996). To thisend, empathy training, particularly during childhood, can be effec-tive (Chawla, 2009; Hoffman, 2000). DEN can be instilled into chil-dren through educational programs. One thing educators can do is tocouple contact with nature with perspective taking exercises. Sobel(1996) showed that through exploring in the natural environment

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104 101performed.

Acknowledgments

entaStudy 5 in the present research implies that anthropomor-phizing nature could be an efcacious strategy in environmentalpromotion. Nevertheless, there has been a debate among scientistsabout the merits or drawbacks of promoting anthropomorphism(see Mitchell, Thompson, & Miles, 1997). On the one hand, someconsider anthropomorphism to be invalid, and thus fear that it mayhinder people from acquiring objective, scientic knowledge aboutnature. On the other hand, some suggest that anthropomorphismhas heuristic value, as it helps people understand and predictnonhumans behavior. Should anthropomorphism be promoted ordismissed? As Gebhard et al. (2003) noted, if anthropomorphismreally permits nature to be moralized, then it might be somethingto be nurtured rather than eliminated. Rather than completelydismissing or unquestioningly embracing anthropomorphism,perhaps educators need to consider how to exibly use scienticand anthropomorphic representations in different contexts, fordifferent purposes, and for different audiences.

10.4. Other considerations

The DENS orients respondents to the suffering experienced byanimals and plants but not other entities. This design is justiablebecause animals and plants are representative of peoples mentalimages on the natural world (e.g., van den Born et al., 2001), andreactions toward animate entities are generalizable to nature as awhole (e.g., Myers et al., 2004). The present research also showsthat the DENS are correlated with other concepts regarding natureas a whole. Still, it is worthwhile for future studies to extend theDENS to inanimate entities, and check if one overall factor, or twofactors (i.e., animate and inanimate entities), shows up.

Because the present research centers on the distress of nature,one may question whether the DENS merely assesses compassion.Compassion is typically measured by such adjectives as sympa-thetic, warm, compassionate, and tender (e.g., Batson et al., 1997).Indeed, two of the six items related to empathic concern in theDENS refer to these adjectives. Because empathy with anotherbeing in distress often leads to compassion toward that being(Batson, 1991), it is conceivable to include items that measurecompassion. However, empathy does not equal compassion, andcompassion could originate from other sources too. For example,compassion could result from religious duties, innate impulses, oreven self-interest (seeWuthnow,1991). Thus, the other items in theDENS do not refer to compassion. Rather, they focus onwhether therespondent shares the pain of the animals and plants; thisemotional sharing is the key in dening the affective component ofempathy. One may also wonder if the negative focus in the DENSarticially primed respondents to be more proenvironmental.Although this effect is plausible, it does not compromise the val-idity of the ndings in the present research, as it would have actedagainst, not favored, the hypotheses. If the DENS primed environ-mental concern, then the natural variation in conservation behavioramong participants would have been masked; this would haveweakened the correlation between DEN and conservation behavior.The fact that this correlation was still robust across the ve studiesimplies that the priming effect of the DENS, even if present, was notconsequential. That said, introducing positive items into the DENSin future may help alleviate this concern.

A merit of the present research is the use of multiple samples.The relationships between DEN and other variables are highlystable across these samples. However, one may feel interested inknowing whether the absolute level of DEN varies across cultures,as it has been argued that empathy is more prevalent in collectivistthan individualist cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Although astringent test of mean differences is not possible in the present

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environm102research (as the two cultural samples differed in many respects), aThe work described in this paper was partially supported by agrant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SpecialAdministrative Region, China (Project No. HKUST645311).

Appendix

List of items in the measure of green behavior frequency

1. Looking for ways to reuse things2. Recycling things (e.g., papers, cans or bottles)3. Encouraging friends or family to recycle4. Purchasing products in reusable containers5. Writing a letter to the government to support an environ-

mental issue6. Volunteering time to help an environmentalist group7. Buying environmentally friendly products even if they may not

work as well as competing products8. Purchasing something made of recycled materials even though

it is more expensive9. Buying products only from companies that have a strong record

of protecting the environment10. Contacting a government agency to complain about environ-

mental problems11. Taking a shorter shower to conserve water12. Using energy-efcient household devices such as light bulbs

References

Atran, S., Medin, D., Vapnarsky, V., Ucan Ek, E., Coley, J. D., Timura, C., et al.(2002). Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons: Agarden experiment in the Maya lowlands, 1995e2000. Current Anthropology,43, 421e450.

Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigationof adults, with Asperger Syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sexdifferences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163e175.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consider-ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173e1182.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer.Hillsdale, NI: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York: Oxford University Press.Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is

empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 73, 495e509.

Belman, J., & Flanagan, M. (2010). Designing games to foster empathy. CognitiveTechnology, 14, 11e21.

Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes andbehavior. Environment and Behavior, 39, 269e283.rough comparison showed that DEN was indeed weaker in the U.S.sample than in the Chinese samples (see Table 1). This ndinghighlights the need for a more rigorous cross-cultural comparison(e.g., using matched samples from multiple cultures), which couldbe useful in testing if the cross-cultural variation of DEN explainsthe known cultural difference in environmentalism (Milfont, 2012).

11. Concluding remarks

While empathy toward humans has been studied for severaldecades already, research on the notion of empathy toward non-humansdthe natural world in particulardis still green. The pre-sent research successfully demonstrates that many rich theoreticaland practical implications can be drawn from the study of empathywith nature. Researchers interested in howhumans relate to natureare recommended to take the construct of empathy seriously.

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104Berenguer, J. (2010). The effect of empathy in environmental moral reasoning.Environment and Behavior, 42, 110e134.

entaBlock, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ve-factor approach to personalitydescription. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187e215.

van den Born, R. J. G., Lenders, R. H. J., de Groot, W. T., & Huijsman, E. (2001). Thenew biophilia: An exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Envi-ronmental Conservation, 28, 65e75.

Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazons Mechanical Turk: Anew source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on PsychologicalScience, 6, 3e5.

Chawla, L. (2009). Growing up green: Becoming an agent of care for the naturalworld. The Journal of Developmental Processes, 4, 6e23.

Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Burgess, C. (2011). The role of zoos in fostering environ-mental identity. Ecopsychology, 3, 87e96.

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of help-ing: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,752e766.

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientic psychology. American Psy-chologist, 12, 671e684.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independentof psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349e354.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for amultidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,113e126.

Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking onthe cognitive representations of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 713e726.

Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the naturalenvironment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrice. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 31, 257e265.

DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks:Sage.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and relatedbehaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91e119.

Ellen, P. S., Weiner, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumereffectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal ofPublic Policy & Marketing, 10, 102e117.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factortheory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864e886.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., &Barron,K. E. (2004). Testingmoderator andmediator effects incounseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115e134.

Gebhard, U., Nevers, P., & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (2003). Moralizing trees: Anthro-pomorphism and identity in childrens relationship to nature. In S. Clayton, &S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 91e111). Cambridge:MIT Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens develop-ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gosling, E., & Williams, K. J. H. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachmentand conservation behavior: Testing connectedness theory among farmers.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 298e340.

Guergachi, A., Ngenyama, O., Magness, V., & Hakim, J. (July 2010). Empathy: Aunifying approach to address the dilemma of environment versus economy. InPaper presented at International congress on environmental modelling andsoftware.

Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced

mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 46, 841e845.

Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (in press). A neuroaffective perspective on why peoplefail to live a sustainable lifestyle. In H. van Trijp (Ed.), Multiple selves: Angels,demons, and sustainable behavior. London: Psychology Press.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 10, 252e264.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism andenvironmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences,43, 1583e1593.

Hodges, S. D., Clark, B., & Myers, M. W. (2011). Better living through perspectivetaking. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as a mechanism for socialchange (pp. 193e218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring andjustice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (2008). Empathy and prosocial behavior. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 440e455). New York:Guilford Press.

Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 33, 307e316.

Hojat, M., Mangione, S., Nasca, T. J., Cohen, M. J. M., Gonnella, J. S., Erdmann, J. B., et al.(2001). The Jefferson scale of physician empathy: Development and preliminarypsychometric data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 349e365.

Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with acognitive theory of stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 1e14.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventorydversions 4aand 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.

K.-P. Tam / Journal of EnvironmJolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basicempathy scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589e611.Kaiser, F. G., Doka, G., Hofstetter, P., & Ranney, M. A. (2003). Ecological behavior andits environmental consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report mea-sure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11e20.

Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional afnity toward nature as amotivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178e202.

Konrath, S. H., OBrien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy inAmerican college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 15, 180e198.

McCright, A. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge andconcern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32, 66e87.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Condence limits for theindirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar-iate Behavioral Research, 39, 99e128.

McKnight, D. M. (2010). Overcoming ecophobia: Fostering environmentalempathy through narrative in childrens science literature. Frontiers in Ecologyand the Environment, 8, 10e15.

Markowitz, E. M., Goldberg, L. R., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2012). Proling the pro-environmental individual: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80,81e111.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224e253.

Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure ofindividuals feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 24, 503e515.

Milfont, T. L. (2012). Cultural differences in environmental engagement. InS. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psy-chology (pp. 181e200). New York: Oxford University Press.

Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A validand reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 30, 80e94.

Mitchell, R. W., Thompson, N. S., & Miles, H. L. (1997). Anthropomorphism, anecdotes,and animals. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. HumanEcology Review, 10, 113e125.

Mooradian, T. A., Davis, M., & Matzler, K. (2011). Dispositional empathy andthe hierarchical structure of personality. American Journal of Psychology, 124,99e109.

Myers, O. E., Saunders, C. D., & Bexell, S. (2009). Fostering empathy with wildlife:Factors affecting free-choice learning for conservation concern and behavior. InJ. H. Falk, J. E. Heimlich, & S. Foutz (Eds.), Free-choice learning and the environ-ment (pp. 39e55). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Myers, O. E., Saunders, C. D., & Garrett, E. (2004). What do children think animalsneed? Developmental trends. Environmental Education Research, 104, 545e562.

Myyry, L., & Helkama, K. (2001). University students value priorities and emotionalempathy. Educational Psychology, 21, 25e40.

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale:Linking individuals connection with nature to environmental concern andbehaviour. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715e740.

Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 30, 455e463.

Riek, L. D., Rabinowitch, T. C., Chakrabarti, B., & Robinson, P. (2009). Empathizingwith robots: Fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum. In Pro-ceedings of international conference on affective computing and intelligenceinteraction (pp. 1e6).

Royzman, E. B., & Kumar, R. (2001). On the relative preponderance of empathic sorrowand its relation to commonsense morality. New Ideas in Psychology, 19, 131e144.

Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking onconcern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391e406.

Schultz, P. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concernfor self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21,1e13.

Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A ve-country survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29, 540e558.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1e65). New York:Academic Press.

Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Inuences of a narrowdata base on social psychologys view of human nature. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 515.

Sevillano, V., Aragones, J. I., & Schultz, P. W. (2007). Perspective taking, environ-mental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy. Environmentand Behavior, 39, 685e705.

Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy-arousingappeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,11, 366e378.

Singer, T., Seymour, B., ODoherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004).Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain.Science, 303, 1157e1162.

Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. GreatBarrington, MA: The Orion Society and the Myrin Institute.

Stephen, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergrouprelations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 729e743.

l Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104 103Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signicantbehavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407e424.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological para-digm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723e743.

Tam, K-P. (2013).Measuring dispositional anthropomorphism of nature. Manuscript inpreparation.

Tam, K-P. Anthropomorphism of nature and efcacy in coping with the environ-mental crisis. Social Cognition, in press.

Tam, K-P., Lee, S-L., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: anthropomorphismenhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 49, 514e521.

Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Epley, E. (2010). Who sees human? The stability andimportance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives onPsychological Science, 5, 219e232.

Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion: Caring for others and helping ourselves.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: Theimpact of categorization and identication on emotions and action tendencies.British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533e549.

Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences inenvironmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443e457.

K.-P. Tam / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 92e104104

Dispositional empathy with nature1 Introduction2 Empathy with humans3 Empathy with nature3.1 Induced empathy with nature3.2 Dispositional empathy with nature: the missing construct3.3 Four propositions regarding DEN3.3.1 DEN motivates conservation behavior3.3.2 Females have stronger DEN3.3.3 Individuals who feel close to nature have stronger DEN3.3.4 Individuals who consider nature to be sentient have stronger DEN

3.4 The present research

4 Study 14.1 Scale construction4.2 Distinctiveness of DEN4.3 Method4.4 Results and discussion

5 Study 25.1 Distinctiveness of DEN5.2 Method5.3 Results and discussion

6 Study 36.1 Method6.2 Results and discussion



9 Meta-analyses10 General discussion10.1 Theory of empathy with nature10.1.1 Deriving new propositions10.1.2 Comparing empathy with humans and empathy with nature10.1.3 Understanding empathic joy

10.2 Contributions to understanding conservation behavior10.3 Implications for environmental promotion10.4 Other considerations

11 Concluding remarksAcknowledgmentsAppendixReferences

empathy with nature

Documents

notion of empathy

theory of empathy

role of empathyfective

nature den

conservation psychology

construct of den

present research

conservation behavior